Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14918 of 2018 Petitioner :- Devkaran Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nand Kishor Mishra,Shilpa Ahuja Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Subhash Mehta, Advocate holding brief of Shri M.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to restrain the concerned respondents from making R.C.C. public way between the land in dispute of petitioner i.e. Arazi no.779/1 Area 0.004 hectare situate at Village Sugira, Pargana and Tehsil Kulpahad, District Mahoba.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the earlier one Mahendra Singh and Munna Singh Yadav have tried to create unnecessary obstruction in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over Arazi no.779/1 area 0.004 hectare and feeling aggrieved with the same, petitioner alongwith others have filed Suit no.52 of 2014 (Devkaran and others vs. Mahendra Singh and another) before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kulpahad, District Mahoba for permanent injunction and the Court concerned, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has proceeded to pass ex-parte decree dated 08.01.2016 and 22.01.2016 and as such, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court with the request that now the third to fifth respondents are trying to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the said land and as such, request has been made for restraining them not to make any RCC public way on the land of the petitioner.
Per contra, Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel has raised objection that the aforesaid suit filed by the petitioner was decreed ex-parte against Mahendra Singh and Munna Singh Yadav in the year 2016 and the petitioner has remedies to file an application for execution of the aforesaid decree. In case some other persons are interfering in his peaceful possession over the land in question, then appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the competent court for injunction.
Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has already made detailed representation dated 22.01.2018 before the District Magistrate, Mahoba and as such, the request has made to ask the Authority concerned to decide the same in accordance with law at the earliest.
In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, on consent, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the District Magistrate, Mahoba to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him, but certainly after according opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders in the matter.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 A. Pandey